Tuesday, April 08, 2014

Korea's Test Scores High Despite Schools and Teachers

In my travels throughout Korea, in virtually
every meeting I heard a variation of the same theme. “Why does President Obama
think that Korean schools are good?”

Although there are disputes about how much Obama
or Education Secretary Arne Duncan like Korean schools—see here and here, for example—there is no question that
Korea’s students’ consistently high PISA scores and schools attract some praise
from not only Obama, but also many others in America and worldwide. In
particular, Obama has praised the role that Korea’s teachers play in
society—and many note that Korea’s top students become teachers unlike in the
United States. Obama has also discussed the longer hours that Koreans spend in school.

So are these the
reasons Korea’s students succeed?

As I explained to those with whom I spoke, I
think Americans who praise Korea’s schools misunderstand the realities on the
ground. My sense is that Korean students have high educational achievement not
because of Korea’s schools, but often despite them. Students sleep routinely
through their classes. The lecture style that teachers employ is not effective
enough to keep them awake. It’s hard to imagine that the teachers are so
talented that they can cause their students to learn through osmosis.

Students do spend long hours in self-study after
school, which helps undoubtedly, but for many, they tend to excel because their
parents spend huge sums to send them to hagwons after the
self-studying, in which students do their “real” learning, teachers, parents,
and school leaders told me again and again. The educational experience is far
from efficient.

And there is a real societal price to pay, as
students are sleep-deprived and unhappy, employers question how ready they are
for life and work after leaving school—the College Scholastic Aptitude Test
incentives memorization at the expense of thinking because of its structure and
time limit—and the birth rate has declined markedly in Korea at least in part
because of how expensive it is to have children. . . .